Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
DayVV4lkEr
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 11:53:00 -
[1]
The main problem why it is a problem to create a missile counter module is that all the stats that would make a missile hit for less damage are stats that are based on the missile and not the Launcher.
The Solution for me would be give the Launchers the stats for Explosion Radius and Explosion Velocity (even if it is not that logical) and the missiles only mod that stats (precisions improve explosion velocity and radius i.e.)
Then it would be easy to create a module like a tracking disruptor that would mod this stats (positiv or negativ (positiv like tracking inks negativ like trackingdisruptors)
Flame as long as u want only trying to give ideas
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 12:14:00 -
[2]
No, the main objection is that things are balanced. Creating new defences means bumping missile damage which stuffs ships which cannot afford to fit the defence.
|
Shandling
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 12:19:00 -
[3]
Fit defenders if you hate missiles that much
|
DayVV4lkEr
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 12:22:00 -
[4]
I don't hate missiles ...
I have 7.6 m SP in Missile Launcher Opreation, but i can't stand that Whinage anymore that missiles are overpowred and that it's unfair that there is no counter module like a tracking disruptor.
So just introduce one. if u don't want to fit it your loss but then there would be one and the whinage would finally stop (at least in that direction)
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 12:23:00 -
[5]
If they come out with a Missile Disruptor mod, I also want a Missile Computer mod. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Vathar
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 12:33:00 -
[6]
Well, fix defenders and I'll be happy ... ____________
Space Shaman
Don't take life seriously, you'll not survive it anyway |
Jaketh Ivanes
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 12:46:00 -
[7]
I would like a "decoy" system. Its a module, that can trick the missile to think the ships is closer than it is, so it explodes prematurely. Could give it a 20% base chance and 10km range, with skills that increase the chance and other skills/mods that improves the missiles "resists".
Could even make guided missiles, that require a pointer (target painter) to find a target, but is also immune to the decoy system. Tho, if there is no painted target, the missile just wanders off into the distance.
I would also like to see size specific bonuses to caldari missiles and gallente drones. So a raven don't get speed/dam bonus to light, heavy, cruise and torp missiles. Neither will the gallente get.. well, that is gonna be tricky, as its a lot of bonuses. Might gimp a domi using med drones to much.
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 12:50:00 -
[8]
Fix this, fix that, balance blah blah blah.
The only time we'll stop complaining is when we all get the same ONE ship and ONE weapon. Of course the game will be as exciting as 80's "Pong" by then, so long live complaining.
My take; remove tracking disrupters, remove defenders, introduce decoys. Decoys affect the targetting system of your ship, so affect all things equally (exception: smartbombs). A decoy takes a certain amount of damage and is then destroyed. Restriction on the ship controlling the decoy would apply (speed, rate of fire etc). It's not intended as an "I win" weapon, more an "I survive" weapon. Haulers could launch them as they run for the gate. Think of it as temporary ECM. They would counter webbers as the web would target the decoy, not the ship that fired it.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 12:51:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes I would also like to see size specific bonuses to caldari missiles and gallente drones. So a raven don't get speed/dam bonus to light, heavy, cruise and torp missiles. Neither will the gallente get.. well, that is gonna be tricky, as its a lot of bonuses. Might gimp a domi using med drones to much.
Raven only gets bonus to Cruise and Torps.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Jon Xylur
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 13:13:00 -
[10]
There are no good missile counters. Defenders are bugged and don't think they'll be schedueled for fixing any time soon. So lets just all train Caldari. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, and not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty - Cortes |
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 13:18:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jon Xylur There are no good missile counters. Defenders are bugged and don't think they'll be schedueled for fixing any time soon. So lets just all train Caldari.
Actually they are scheduled. I'm pretty sure that it can be done just by tweaking numbers and not change the way they are work. But in any case it might be a good idea to create a dedicated launcher for this. _______________ |
|
Jin Entres
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 13:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Jon Xylur There are no good missile counters. Defenders are bugged and don't think they'll be schedueled for fixing any time soon. So lets just all train Caldari.
Actually they are scheduled. I'm pretty sure that it can be done just by tweaking numbers and not change the way they are work. But in any case it might be a good idea to create a dedicated launcher for this.
How about auto-activating defenders that seek any missiles and not just the ones aimed at you but with severely reduced RoF? ---
|
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 13:32:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Maya Rkell No, the main objection is that things are balanced. Creating new defences means bumping missile damage which stuffs ships which cannot afford to fit the defence.
WHY?
The main objection is that things are not balanced, because you can't evade or disrupt the goddamn things. Do you seriously read some of the stuff you post? I'm having hard time believing your goals go beyond incessant naysaying.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 13:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Jon Xylur There are no good missile counters. Defenders are bugged and don't think they'll be schedueled for fixing any time soon. So lets just all train Caldari.
Actually they are scheduled. I'm pretty sure that it can be done just by tweaking numbers and not change the way they are work. But in any case it might be a good idea to create a dedicated launcher for this.
Getting defenders to work - easy. Balancing them - nightmare.
Seriously, you are not going to please ANYONE with this module. All turret users will say it is not effective enough, and all missile users will say it is too effective.
I'm a missile user, and I think Turret Disrupters are overpowered. PLEASE don't "fix" defenders by giving us another overpowered defensive module with no sensible penalties.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Harum Skarum
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:00:00 -
[15]
A med slot missile defense module would be nice.
Sacrificing high slots for defenders is not really worth it, maybe if defenders would hit all "hostile" missiles and did alot more dmg dedicated defender ships would become viable in gangs.
|
miro hirisko
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:01:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Shandling Fit defenders if you hate missiles that much
defenders? they work? didnt realise you could fit them on a domi :¦
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:03:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Maya Rkell No, the main objection is that things are balanced. Creating new defences means bumping missile damage which stuffs ships which cannot afford to fit the defence.
500 ISK says Maya will want to give missiles a fleet command bonus instead
________________________________________
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:17:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 08/06/2006 14:17:41
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Jon Xylur There are no good missile counters. Defenders are bugged and don't think they'll be schedueled for fixing any time soon. So lets just all train Caldari.
Actually they are scheduled. I'm pretty sure that it can be done just by tweaking numbers and not change the way they are work. But in any case it might be a good idea to create a dedicated launcher for this.
Dedicated launcher ?
Why ? That would mean losing offensive power instead of just a medslot like you lose for all anti-turret countermeasures. I'd sure as hell wouldn't use any of those in pvp unless ive got a spare slot which cant fit anything else tbh. Or is this like, a pve-only thing then ?
Old blog |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:21:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 08/06/2006 14:22:01
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Maya Rkell No, the main objection is that things are balanced. Creating new defences means bumping missile damage which stuffs ships which cannot afford to fit the defence.
WHY?
The main objection is that things are not balanced, because you can't evade or disrupt the goddamn things. Do you seriously read some of the stuff you post? I'm having hard time believing your goals go beyond incessant naysaying.
Because, perhaps, they are not unbalanced? There is one more defence against turrets (tracking disruptors) than against missiles (yes, yes there are FOF's but they require a amo change and do less damage, are slower, etc.), but speed in ANY direction will protect against missiles, as opposed to only transversal for turrets.
Missiles and turrets are different and work differently. How is that bad again?
What is unbelieveable is that you have to turn everything into a personal insult.
Oh and Denrace, pay up. I'm not in favour of any changes to T1 missiles and launchers at this time.
|
Tremain
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:26:00 -
[20]
Just give players the defenders npcs use :)
I'm pretty neutral - I PVE and you can't creat something that can make npcs knock any more missiles out of the air than they already do (I'll be shocked if you do - omg 1 missile from a spread getting through!).
|
|
Jon Hawkes
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:35:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Jon Hawkes on 08/06/2006 14:35:28
Originally by: Tremain Just give players the defenders npcs use :)
Good point. While they're at it, can we also get the MWDs that the NPCs use? You know the ones: the ones that work in deadspace and can be run forever...
|
Rawthorm
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:46:00 -
[22]
Missile damage as it stands sucks nuts (and in general caldari ship classes have less slots for missiles than other races do for turrets) but this was fine due to missile versitility making the crap damage worth it.
If we are going to have some over powered missile defense system, then missiles so want to start hitting alot harder...
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 15:01:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Rawthorm Missile damage as it stands sucks nuts (and in general caldari ship classes have less slots for missiles than other races do for turrets) but this was fine due to missile versitility making the crap damage worth it.
If we are going to have some over powered missile defense system, then missiles so want to start hitting alot harder...
Your rage something torpedo hits armageddon for 1168 dmg x 6 every 7.5s... You need some painters,yes. Just like thron needs mwd, injector and web. Oh and optimal from 0 to 70km...
--------- Dead already? |
konkord
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 15:16:00 -
[24]
What about a module that actively 'webs' missiles to slow them down when within a certain range of the ship? this could also 'explosion dampen' the missile. higher skills mean further range or how many missiles you can 'catch' per cycle.
Just a thought. ---------------------- Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 120x400 pixels. -Kaemonn |
Sniper FC
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 15:25:00 -
[25]
ok here a question for u which I think would solve ALOT of missile problems. atm the hit fot eh smae dmg over any distance, well give them an optimal like with guns, the closer they get to the end of there flight time the less dmg they do, kind like running out of fuel gives a smaller explosion.
and on this priciple instead of an optimal so to speak it could just be optimal next to the ship then the further it goes the weaker it gets!
This is just an idea and I know that thish would make them short range weapons ensentialy but big deal caldari are meant to use rails as well and they have range!!
What do u guys think about this idea?
i know i must of missed sumit which makes it a bad idea ----------------------------------------------- Want to join a fun corp that do most things in eve Join "suicidal" channel and have a chat |
Clavius XIV
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 16:01:00 -
[26]
I think mid-slot "missle disruptors" are a bad idea, it just goes more along the line of making missles and turrets the same. What is needed are defenders that work (no special launcher please), and SMARTBOMBS THAT WORK.
With current missile speeds, a change to smartbombs may be having a "smarbomb field" that will deal damage once to anyting entering the field. Let the field be active for 2 seconds or someting, and you have a partial missile screen, a use for smartbombs, and someting to useful to stick in utility highslots besides nos.
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 16:29:00 -
[27]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Maya Rkell No, the main objection is that things are balanced. Creating new defences means bumping missile damage which stuffs ships which cannot afford to fit the defence.
WHY?
The main objection is that things are not balanced, because you can't evade or disrupt the goddamn things. Do you seriously read some of the stuff you post? I'm having hard time believing your goals go beyond incessant naysaying.
I didn't think anyone believed Maya's goals went beyond that.
Originally by: Maya Rkell Missiles and turrets are different and work differently. How is that bad again?
I wish people would stop using this argument. Just because the weapon systems are different doesn't mean they shouldn't be balanced with other weapon systems.
Originally by: Some Random Guy Missile damage as it stands sucks nuts
Yes, but you have the added advantage of doing almost not missing a shot and doing constant dps at every range, a luxury turret ships don't enjoy. On a close-range ship, you're garenteed to repeatedly miss shots due to traversal yet missiles may possibly lose 3 damage unless they are facing a mwd ceptor, in which case neither weapon system stands a chance.
Originally by: Same Random Guy some over powered missile defense system
The system should be as "overpowered" as tracking disruptors are on turret ships.
Of course, if we had a tracking formula that took into account angular velocity there wouldn't be such a problem. The turret ships would be able to keep up the maximum orbit speed without missing a shot (which btw, is how it would work in real life for all of you who like to bring that into the equation) and it might mean that missile users would *gasp* have to fit a web to do more damage.
Also, nerf explosion velocity - it's too high.
And finally I use projectiles & missiles so don't call me biased :)
|
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 16:29:00 -
[28]
just make a high-capacity defender launcher which has a x% chance to fire a defender missile when someone shoots at you. maybe at 5% base and 25% with all skills maxed.
also include skills so your missiles can shoot down other missiles.
lvl5 for torps lvl4 for cruise lvl3 for heavy lvl2 for light and lvl1 for rockets.
citadel torps should not be affected (or maybe only by capital version of the launcher).
|
Xori Ruscuv
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 16:40:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tuxford Actually they are scheduled. I'm pretty sure that it can be done just by tweaking numbers and not change the way they are work. But in any case it might be a good idea to create a dedicated launcher for this.
PLEASE make such a 'dedicated module' usable by pure gunships. All we need is ANOTHER advantage for missile turret ships.
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 16:43:00 -
[30]
STOP. Don't change a f-ing thing beyond deleting t2 ammo from the damn game. THEN sort out whether or not missiles need a counter ffs. -= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |